Actions speak: personality, nonverbal behaviors, and self-perceptions of vulnerability in college-aged women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Despite representing a relatively small portion of the population, those who experience repeat victimization make up a significant share of all sexual and violent crimes, implying that perpetrators target them repeatedly. Indeed, research reveals specific traits (e.g. submissiveness) and behaviors (e.g. gait) related to past victimization or vulnerability. The purpose of this study is to explore the link between personality traits, self-assessed vulnerability and nonverbal cues. Design/methodology/approach In all, 40 undergraduate Canadian women were videotaped while recording a dating profile. Self-report measures of assertiveness, personality traits and vulnerability ratings for future sexual or violent victimization were obtained following the video-recording. The videotape was coded for nonverbal behaviors that have been related to assertiveness or submissiveness. Findings Self-perceived sexual vulnerability correlated with reduced assertiveness and dominance and increased emotionality (e.g. fear and anxiety). Additionally, nonverbal behaviors differed based on personality traits: self-touch was linked to lower assertiveness, dominance and extraversion and higher submissiveness, emotionality and warm-agreeableness. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study of its kind to consider the relationships between personality, self-perceived vulnerability and nonverbal behaviors among college-aged women. Potential implications, including enhancing autonomy and self-efficacy, are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".